Nature – Page 2 – American Environments to 1893

February 23, 2014

The Buffalo: A Tool Against Native Americans

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

The Destruction of the Bison by Andrew C. Isenberg is a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the relationships between both Native Americans and Euroamericans on the bison within North America. In his work, Isenberg provides a number of different arguments for the decline of the bison, such as the growth of the fur trade, their presence in the way of American progress, and many others. Yet, he also indicates that the destruction of the bison was a directive by the United States military and pioneers to help rid the land of the Native Americans. Isenberg describes how a fellow historian, David D. Smits, argues that the United States Army was primarily responsible for the destruction of these creatures. The support for this position rests with the evidence that indicates how American soldiers would often destroy the Native American’s natural resources to push the Indians onto the reserves after various defeats to them in battle. General Sherman, most notably known for his work in “Sherman’s March,” was an advent supporter of this philosophy, for he believed if you removed their resources, the Native Americans would be forced to retreat to the reservations (128).

The army was not the only political body that held this idea either, as members of the House of Representatives also supported this directive in the light of American progress. During the Delano vs. Fort debates regarding a humanitarian and animal preservation bill in the 1870s, Columbus Delano expressed his side’s position on the matter. He stated in reference to the bison “The rapid disappearance of game from the former hunting-grounds must operate largely in favor of our efforts to confine the Indians to smaller areas, and compel them to abandon their nomadic customs” (152). His words clearly articulate how members of the United States Government were openly in favor of the destruction of the bison as the means of a weapon against the Native Americans to control their actions. Avoiding the ethical questions that arise within this position, as there are many, it is evident that many members of the United States Government saw the bison as merely a side-effect of progress, a creature that was in the wrong place as the wrong time. Though there were many others who did not take this position, such as President Roosevelt moving into the 20^th century, it remained a common perception of the time.

I would say I have to completely agree with Sean’s points regarding Isenberg’s ideas on the definition of nature. By noting how the buffalo were actually devastated by other factors outside of human hand, it offers a perception that humanity’s alteration of the environment is a natural progression of the world. Though many people would deny this, offering a definition that places nature outside of human contact, if we look at contemporary movie examples for images of the future, we potentially can see Isenberg’s perspective at work. The first movie that comes to mind is “Star Trek: Into Darkness.” In the film, both futuristic London and San Francisco are portrayed, displaying a completely technologically based society almost entirely void of “wilderness.” Portrayals such as this somewhat indicate that the natural steps of ecological evolution are allowing for humanity to shape the environment as it can, for every other creature we interact with does the exact same within their capacity.

February 14, 2014

Chigaco: Another Forest of the Wilderness

William Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis Chicago and The Great West he introduces an interesting set of theories referred to as “booster theories.” These ideas comment on the fact that Chicago would become a great city because of its natural resources, thereby making it the center of trade for the region, its extensive natural routes of transportation, and finally, the global climatic forces that mysteriously made great cities (36). The existence of these theories and the way they are framed by Cronon illustrates an interesting argument for cities being a part of nature. Through these theories, it seems as though it was pre-destined for a city to inhabit these regions, alluding to an idea that God or some other force(s) crafted the region for this specific purpose. It all falls back to the question of if cities are a part of nature, just another “natural” development, or if they are something alien? Through Cronon’s descriptions of these theories, further elaborating on the perfect natural setting for a city, it seems as though he casts his hand with those who perceive cities as the next evolution of a natural ecosystem.

Cronon makes an interesting statement in his description of the rise of Chicago, one which frames the city as something almost organic. In relation to the countryside around the city, Cronon states that it would be “tributary” to give Chicago its new empire (43). I found it a little odd to describe the city in such a way, but when positioning this statement with Cronon’s previous ideas on the city as the next ecological evolution, it makes sense. If the city is part of nature, then it is in fact a “living” piece of the ecosystem, one which requires the resources to continue its existence. From this perspective, the vast country side that surrounds this great metropolis seems only logical as the “food” to help this city grow. Though many would disagree with this interpretation of a city, it is not too far off from our common conceptions of nature, where we often cast the neutral force as evil or against human existence.

I think by looking at Henry’s post on Cronon’s definition of nature, we gain a more concrete understanding of why he frames Chicago as something part of nature. After reading through Henry’s comments, I completely agree with his assessment of Cronon’s perception of natural as “something that seems to be in its normal place” (Henry). So many perceive nature to be something void of human contact and interference, yet there is probably no location on Earth that has not been inhabited by humans at some point in time. Though a city is a massive technological feat, with numerous components encompassing its complex, it can still just be viewed as the next step along ecological evolution, just like the human creation of the boat. If the land around Chicago made it a viable location for the construction of a city, who is to say that this is wrong or against nature? By using nature’s resources for various purposes, could it not be said that humans are simply doing as other animals doing in providing sustenance and shelter for their existence? Though I am sure these questions will lead to numerous amounts of critiques, it is something to think about when articulating a moral argument against human “alteration” of nature.

January 27, 2014

Nouveau Nature

Of the primary source materials related to Davidson’s natural landscape, I thought the most interesting were the black and white photographs showing Davidson in varying states of deforestation. It is difficult to look at the carefully manicured lawn in front of Chambers and imagine it strewn with felled trees and crisscrossed by corduroy roads.

For a while, most of Davidson consisted of empty fields. It wasn’t until the second half of the 20^th century that additional buildings were added to the empty land and trees were added to the cross country trails. The way the campus is designed leads one to believe that the campus was molded around nature, that the buildings were built just so in order to be locked in by graceful oaks. Rather, any of the nature on campus is here to replace what was lost when the school first cleared the land. The arboretum on campus is to nature as a museum is to culture.

When did Davidson cease to become truly natural and wild? I think that when the Atlantic, Tennessee, and Ohio railroad was completed in 1860, development began rapidly. Before then, Davidson was out in the middle of nowhere surrounded by wilderness.

January 26, 2014

Creating “Wilderness”

In his essay “The Wilderness Narrative and the Cultural Logic of Capitalism,” Carl Talbot quotes Robert Nash as having stated that “wilderness is a matter of perception – part of the geography of the mind” (330). Along with Talbot’s passage about the Wilderness Narrative, I also selected Chief Luther Standing Bear’s “Indian Wisdom” and David Harmon’s “Cultural Diversity, Human Subsistence and the National Park Ideal” in order to develop my definition of American wilderness. After reading these essays, I would align myself with Nash and argue that the “American wilderness” is a culturally constructed perception that emerged during the early ages of European settlement in the Americas – and continues through the present day – that nature is untamed and therefore must be controlled by or otherwise separated from humans.

In “Indian Wisdom” Chief Luther Standing Bear argued that prior to the arrival of white European settlers in North America, there was no such concept of “wilderness.” To the Native Americans, all things in nature were tamed, and humans were merely surrounded by the wonders of the “Great Mystery” (201). It was the white men, he said, who first distanced themselves from nature by trying to control it and thus first developed the idea of the “wilderness” (205). In effect, Chief Luther demonstrated that American “wilderness” first emerged as a result of being molded by the culture of white men. This theme continues to the modern day as reflected in Talbot’s essay. Talbot stated that “nature was organized so as to meet the spatial, economic, and psychological needs of capitalism” (326). By pairing the idea of wilderness with the growth of white and capitalist cultures in, these writers depict how “American wilderness” is a continually renewed cultural construct throughout American history.

Additionally, Talbot and Harmon aid in illustrating how nature is incompatible with mainstream American culture. Harmon used words like “protected,” “ownership,” and “management” to describe modern national parks. These words connote meanings directly in contrast to a word like “nature,” which emphasizes a lack of manipulation by humans. Talbot also asserted that for many the “wilderness is a leisure resource” and has been commodified for the modern world (325, 328). We can take this to mean that because “nature” is not a piece of mainstream American culture, it needs to be cordoned off into an occasionally visited segment of society. Nature in its purest form is too inconvenient for Americans. Moreover, while places like national parks are often considered the most natural pieces of our culture, even they fail to be truly natural. This idea ties back into our discussion last week about how even the places which we feel resemble nature in Davidson have actually been the most manipulated by humans.

After reading Manish’s post I agree with his claims about Turner’s method to achieving an understanding of the environment. I think we can see some similar sentiments in Chief Luther Standing Bear’s essay. Both highlight the distance that man has put between himself and the environment. In order to regain an understanding of the wilderness, man needs to once again immerse himself in nature. This in turn goes back to Chief Luther Standing Bear and how he recalled the Lakota living among nature, rather than dominating it. It is fascinating to see how two men like Turner and Chief Luther Standing Bear – writing in very different times and with very different perspectives – ultimately reached similar conclusions about how Americans need to understand “nature” and “wilderness.”

January 26, 2014

Nature’s Destructive Power

For our first day of class, we went to the rare book room of the library and got to look at some old maps and pictures of Davidson’s campus, showing everything from topography and vegetation to building layouts. It really gives a sense of how the campus has evolved and grown over time (personally, the change I most appreciate is not having to live in the same building where classes are held). However, the thing that I noticed most in the maps and pictures was how the old Chambers building burned in 1921, and how the lot where it once stood remained untouched for many years after.

In many ways, mankind’s history, particularly in the United States, has been a story of a slow but sure mastery over nature. As technology has advanced, humans have conquered many of the obstacles nature presents. We have cities full of buildings, some a hundred stories tall, which protect us from the cold and other elements. To cross North America was once a long, dangerous task—now, one can simply fly across the country in six hours. Unsurprisingly, this has given humans a sense of superiority over nature, a belief that nature no longer poses us a threat. However, disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis strike often enough for most people to retain a healthy respect for the power of nature.

Davidson seems to have gotten its own lesson in nature’s wrath when the old Chambers building, the focal point of its campus, burned down. In a letter to his mother, one student present for the fire writes that he “never saw such a magnificent, awe-inspiring, heart-rending sigh in all my life and never hope to again,” also noting that people could see the glow from the fire from as far away as Winston-Salem. The student also describes that the building looked “ghastly,” with only its walls and pillars still standing. That leads me to the next thing I found interesting—the school’s choice to, after leveling the ruins, leave the empty lot, which became known as the “Ghost of Old Chambers” where the building once stood. One could look at the decision to leave the Ghost as a simple memorial to the old building. However, one could also view the Ghost as constant reminder to Davidson students and faculty that, no matter how much we advance, we are still vulnerable to the powers of nature. Looking at a picture of the Ghost on the school’s online archive, one must admit that it functions as an ominous reminder not to become overconfident in our dealings with nature.

Link to page with letter: http://sites.davidson.edu/archives/encyclopedia/fire-old-chambers-primary-sources

Link to photographs: http://sites.davidson.edu/archives/encyclopedia/fire-old-chambers-photographs

January 26, 2014

Supplementary Reading Review of Wilderness and the American Mind

Roderick Nash’s Wilderness and the American Mind walks a reader through a chronological timeline of the evolving perception of wilderness that has resonated within America since its discovery. From the outset, Nash indicates an obvious but difficult question to answer; what is wilderness? He explains how “land managers and politicians” have struggled to formulate a definitive answer to this question, which introduces a central question of his work, one which remains in mystery at the conclusion of the book.[1] Though Nash never reaches a definitive answer as to what the wilderness truly is, it cannot be ignored how important nature is within our lives and those of people before us. One could believe that because Nash never clearly articulates one answer to this question, that the idea of wilderness is a personal discovery, something that is different for every person. Even though Nash leaves this discovery up to us, he still does a magnificent job of portraying how the different ideas of wilderness and nature have been perceived inside American society, while also indicating the importance of the debates that surrounded these ideas.

Of the numerous chapters of Nash’s piece, one that comes off as one of the strongest is his work on the Old World perceptions of nature that later Europeans brought with them to the New World, that being America. Drawing on numerous secondary sources about Greek and Roman perceptions of nature, Nash initially argues that the old world perception of nature was man vs. the wild. As Nash describes, it was man’s job to overcome nature, as “safety, happiness and progress all seemed dependent on rising out of a wilderness situation.”[2] For the ancients (Greeks and Romans), the wilderness was believed to be filled with demons and lesser gods who were there to thwart human efforts in conquering the wilderness, which Nash’s writing frames as the greatest evil towards man.[3] In fact, this idea did not change too much over the centuries, as Nash indicates how Christians also partook in this negative view towards nature. In the Old Testament, the wilderness is described as a sort of barren wasteland, a place for the devil and punishments from God towards humanity. Moving away from religion, physically wilderness represented a direct threat to human survival, as the trials it presented pioneers could strip any man of his life.[4] From these connotations, Judeo Christian Europeans, who were some of the first to arrive in the New World, perceived the wilderness as something purely evil that must be subjected to their will.[5] Faced with the vast wilderness of the Americas, the colonists’ “courage failed” as their fears were multiplied because of the unknown dangers that resided in these woods.[6]

As Wilderness and the American Mind continues along the timeline of American society, Nash indicates how the perception of the wilderness shifted as American culture began to blossom. Introduced in Chapter 3, Nash describes how individuals began to perceive nature under a romantic connotation, desiring to indulge in the primate lifestyle of the untamed wilderness that had previously been scorned because of the potential dangers that resided outside of civilization.[7] It went so far as to have the romantic ideals of nature become its own literary genre by the 1840s, making the appreciation of wilderness a necessary characteristic of all gentlemen within American society.[8] Using accounts from Abigail Adams, as well as references to Thomas Jefferson’s view on nature, Nash displays how the American wilderness was something Americans started to take pride in during the 18^th and 19^th centuries. Specifically with Abigail’s claims, Nash indicates how Americans’ respected the beauty in the American wilderness, something they believed Europe had lost to its further industrialized society.[9] This beauty became the centerpiece of many poems, literary works, and paintings about the New World, defining the American landscape as something entirely different than Europe.[10] Using information from James Fenimore Cooper’s The Pioneers, Nash diligently describes the shift in American perspective on the wilderness. Instead of being a roadblock to success or something evil, Nash described how Cooper’s work positioned Americans as understanding the pure beauty that resided within nature, as well as the potential for “exciting adventure.”[11]

As Americans pushed further and further west, altering nature into civilization as their ancestors had done before them, Nash notes how people began to realize the beauty of the wilderness was disappearing as civilization took center stage. As a result of this, numerous Americans like John Muir and Aldo Leopold, both American preservationists, made great efforts to preserve the wilderness. Nash depicts how the first instance of American preservation began with President Grant signing an act in 1872 that zoned off 2 million acres of Wyoming to create Yellowstone National Park.[12] In order to secure this act, Nash describes how preservationists had to convince the legislature not of the beauty of the land, but of the lack of use this region had for natural resources. For in American society, the wilderness was no longer perceived as an evil entity, but something filled with vast resources to exploit. Only as a secondary effort did advocates of preservation reference the “remarkable curiosities” or “rare wonders” that were prevalent within Yellowstone as reason not to cultivate this land.[13] Following the creation of Yellowstone, as well as many more national/state parks like it, many politicians and others began to question the need for untouchable territory. Nash introduces this theme in a number of ways, one of which is direct quotes from politicians of the day. Using Kansas Senator John J. Ingalls’ comments from 1883, Nash displays how many politicians were against the zoning off of wilderness for preservation, as he believed it should be sold off “as other public lands are sold.”[14]

Using the example of the Hetch Hetchy debates that began in the late 1800s and grew ever important in the early 1900s, Nash displays the chronic and unending debates regarding preservations vs. use of resources. In early 1900s, San Francisco experienced numerous disasters, such as an earthquake, that made their continual need for fresh water even more of an urgent issue. Within a few hundred miles away was the Hetch Hetchy Valley, which if damned could provide an excellent source of water for the region, but was protected under the creation of Yosemite National Park as a wilderness preserve.[15] President Roosevelt, a fervent preservationist, was faced with a difficult decision which placed his desire to preserve the wilderness against his position to do what is best for the American people. Using various letters and comments from John Muir, who was against the use of the land for a dam, as well as Gifford Pinchot’s comments in favor of it, Nash does a wonderful job of displaying the difficulty that existed within this type of debate.[16] On one side of the issue was the old world mentality of man conquering nature for his personal gain. Yet, on the other, was the newer position of preserving the wilderness, specifically for the inherent beauty that was native to American land. Though the President decided on opening the land for use as a water supply, this did not stop people like John Muir from continuing to comment on the wrongness of the decision, specifically stating that “everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and play in where Nature may heal and cheer and give strength to body and soul alike” in reference to the need for preserved wilderness.[17] These types of debates of preservation vs. resources were not isolated to earlier times, as Nash indicates they continued well on into the 20^th century, remaining a relevant political issue. They remain in the spotlight as more people continue to see the destruction of the wilderness around them, while other individuals only perceive the monetary value that could be gained from these “wild” lands.

In terms of the wilderness of these national parks, one thing Nash does not note in his work, which is commented on in Section II of The Great New Wilderness Debate is the artificiality of these reserves. In an essay by Carl Talbot “The Wilderness Narrative and the Cultural Logic of Capitalism,” this issue is brought to center stage. Talbot indicates how national parks are not “preserved wilderness” but something more artificial, as they do not allow for the natural interaction of humanity and its ecosystem. Instead, this piece of land is something that has been withdrawn from the natural order of the world, essentially quarantined by human hands, seemingly making it just as unnatural as the creation of cities.[18] This type of thought is something that Nash seemingly ignores in his work, which in the light of one of the major questions of his book (what is wilderness) seems to greatly diminish an otherwise thorough piece on the evolution of wilderness perspectives. Wilderness preserves and national parks are a great thing to have if your perception of the wilderness is untamed and void of human interaction, but in light of Talbot’s comments, it appears as though there are people who do not buy into this position. Knowing this, Nash neglects to provide a complete analysis of how natural national parks are, diminishing their effectiveness as something that is “wild.”

In comparison to Nash’s piece, The Great New Wilderness Debate also provides a more thorough analysis of international conservation of the wilderness. Within Chapter 16 of his piece, Nash goes into discussion about international conservation, specifically commenting on Africa as an example. From the start of this chapter, this section of the book seems out of place in light of the rest of the piece. The title of his piece is Wilderness and the American Mind, so why is he going into international preservation, when Africa is not an American land? It appears as though Nash wanted to give a globally encompassed study of perceptions of wilderness, which based on his title is outside the frame of his work. Quite differently in The Great New Wilderness Debate, which does not focus on American conservation, numerous international preservation efforts are described to provide a global perspective on the efforts. Topics ranging from the differences between American preservation efforts and Indian directives, to how the Kidepo National Park in Uganda actually hindered people more than helped are all discussed within the various essays of this piece.[19] Though Nash tries to provide a thorough understanding of wilderness preservation by bringing in international discussions, his efforts seem out of place based and forced, specifically when compared to the much more detailed discussions presented in The Great New Wilderness Debate.

This review barely scratches the surface of all the content that Nash provides within his piece on the evolution of the American perspective on wilderness. There is so much more from his piece that could be discussed for hours on end, such as the pioneering differences between the American West and Alaska or Henry David Thoreau’s journeys through the wilderness and his discoveries to just name a few topics. One of my personal favorites that was not discussed within this review were Nash’s comments on how the hippy counter-culture of the 1960s-70s latched onto the preservation of the wilderness as just another way to fight the current system.[20] Due to the exuberant amount of information that Nash presents in his piece, topics like these could not be given the ample respect they are due using a short discussion. Through Nash’s writing, the chronological changes in perspective of the American wilderness are thoroughly presented. Furthermore, though at the conclusion of Nash’s work one of his central questions regarding what the wilderness is remains unanswered, I believe this was intentional, as well as unavoidable. Using The Great New Wilderness Debate as an example, numerous definitions for the wilderness are presented, such as “an area without people” or one in which people live within the land, drawing upon its resources for survival while also maintaining its purity.[21] With such differing perspectives presented from another piece, it appears Nash’s work fits within the framework of the current understanding of what the wilderness is, which is inconclusive and open to personal interpretation.

[1] Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1982), 5

[2] Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 9

[3] Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 9, 11

[4] Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 24

[5] Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 15

[6] Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 26

[7] Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 49

[8] Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 60

[9] Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 68-69

[10] Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 75

[11] Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 76

[12] Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 108

[13] Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 112

[14] Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 113

[15] Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 161

[16] Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 162-164

[17] Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 165

[18] J. Baird Callicott and Michael P. Nelson, The Great Wilderness Debate, (University of Georgia Press, Athens, 1998) 326

[19] Callicott & Nelson, The Great Wilderness Debate, 223, 241

[20] Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 251

[21] Callicott & Nelson, The Great Wilderness Debate, 295, 319

January 20, 2014

Discovering Nature in Davidson

After discussing the parts of campus we saw as most “natural” and examined maps of Davidson College from years past in class last week, I initially found difficulty in considering Davidson a “natural” place. However, this interpretation hinged upon my definition of “nature,” and so I set about trying to define what the word meant to me. After looking up “nature” in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, I found two definitions that emphasized that nature resembles those parts of the world “not made by people” and that the forces of nature “control what happens in the world” (www.merriam-webster.com). I used these definitions to shape how I perceive both nature and environmental history. In part this perception finds itself within Turner’s Frontier Thesis as the interaction between not only how humans act on the environment but also, and perhaps more importantly, how the environment acts on humans. Using this definition also helped me find what is “natural” in Davidson College.

The maps we saw in the Rare Book Room initially struck me by how manipulated the campus had been. It was surprising to learn that nearly every tree on campus was strategically placed. Even our picnic areas have been completely shaped by man. A map of Hobart Park – the small picnic area behind the football field – shows that every plant in the park was selected and marked to be planted in a designated area. As discussed in class as well as in several previous blog posts, even the “nature” of the cross country trails has been forged by humans. When juxtaposed with my previous definitions of “nature” places like these are rendered unnatural. In this sense I agree with Chelsea when she says that college students and staff have “tampered” with the definition of “natural” because the heart of the word is truly being compromised. With this lens Davidson College is holistically an artificial environment.

On the other hand, I think it is important to remember that this in no way means that nature still does not impart itself upon Davidson’s campus. Nature is very present on campus and we can see it in a variety of ways. On smaller scales, we see this – as Ian noted – when squirrels scamper in front of us without fear, and every spring when the campus is raided by a horde of green inchworms descending from the trees. While man may have placed the trees there, nature still comes to exert control over our environment. In a more serious example, our tennis courts – contrary to the trees and representing one of the most unnatural facilities on campus – are also being overpowered by nature. Built upon one of the lowest point of Davidson, the tennis courts are warped and cracked as a result of the water that collects underneath the court surface following rain. In years to come these courts will have to be rebuilt or removed. Recently acknowledging this, the College wanted to construct a pond, yet another artificial “natural” campus feature, where the tennis courts currently stand. Regardless of how we mold this campus, the undeniable truth is that our creations and manipulations will be shaped by the forces of nature, and I think this fact exemplifies where we can find what is natural at Davidson.

January 19, 2014

The Natural Aspect of Davidson’s Campus

What is considered natural is very hard to pinpoint in this day and age, as very little is left untouched by humans in some manner. As a result, it is much more common to consider gardens, manicured lawns, and arboretums as part of nature, even if they are far from natural. This seems understandable when one compares such human creations to the skyscrapers and interstates that are a staple of American life. Through such a lens, Davidson’s campus appears much more natural. One example of this is the large trees that surround the well located in front of Chambers. The size of those trees indicates that they are of significant age. It is unlikely that they were planted, but rather they are likely the remnants of a forest that may once have existed on Davidson’s campus.

Obviously this is not the case for the majority of trees at Davidson. A thorough inspection of the campus maps reveals a very detailed plan for the exact location and species of every tree located on campus. The school devised a plan for what species of tree would be planted and in what designated area. This realization would have been impossible without the campus maps, and it definitely takes away from the natural appearance of the campus. At the same time, I do not think the natural feel that emanates as one tours Davidson’s campus is completely negated by this realization. Compared to many other colleges and universities in North Carolina, like the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University, Davidson appears very in touch with nature.

This is where it becomes important to differentiate between wilderness and nature. Wilderness, as I see it, is what existed before human interaction or manipulation. Such a definition means that state and national parks are nearly all that remains of the wilderness in present day America. Thus, Davidson’s campus obviously does not qualify as wilderness. The campus maps show that Davidson has been changed and transformed over the years according to human desires. This does not mean, however, that nature is no longer present at Davidson. The trees are still home to squirrels and there are enough woods to house the affectionately named “Commons monster,” several deer, and even the occasional skunk. While all of this is merely a remnant of the once untamed wilderness that existed here long before Davidson was ever founded, it is still nature.

As far as the most unnatural aspect of Davidson’s campus, I have to agree with Ian’s anointing of the artificial turf inside Richardson Stadium. It resembles a cheap doormat more than it does natural grass. The artificial turf is also very painful to fall on. The little black pebbles that Ian mentioned are not easy on the skin if you fall-they destroy your legs and leave something similar to a rug-burn, only worse. The artificial turf is yet another example of the human transformation of Davidson’s campus. Even so, as long as the trees, shrubs, and grass remain, Davidson will always maintain contact with nature.

January 18, 2014

Davidson Wilderness

After looking over the pictures of the evolution of Davidson’s campus, I was shocked to see the gradual deforestation that has occurred throughout the grounds. Though the years were not listed, years before my time here, the grounds surrounding Chambers and many of the dorms were littered with trees of varying sizes. In my opinion, this created a more natural feel to the campus, as the trees, even if they were planted by humans, represented the ecological side of our ecosystem. Today, though trees remain around chambers, they are not nearly as prevalent, replaced by pristinely kept grass that radiates with an artificial feeling.

Following our class discussion on what part of campus was the most “natural” or “wild” to me, I was left without a clear answer. My initial answer was the cross country trail, but sadly the trees that gave the course its natural feeling were all planted by human hands, stripping it of the natural purity I initially accredited it with. After some thought, I realized that the most natural thing to me on Davidson’s campus are the squirrels.

For those who do not know, Davidson squirrels are a little different than others from around the country. They often run right up to you and do not flee as you walk within feet of them, but continue doing whatever it is they do. For some, they might see this as unnatural, as the squirrels do not fear humans as other squirrels around the land generally do. Yet, for me, I see it as the peak of nature on campus. These animals recognize us as part of their ecosystem, regardless of our biological differences. It appears as though they have learned that we pose no threat to their way of life, so they do not fear us, leaving them to calmly live alongside us on the campus. Though different than most animals, I view their acknowledgement of our place amongst their ecosystem as the epitome of nature on this campus.

If I had to pick one thing on campus that I view as the most unnatural thing, I would have to go with the turf on our football field. Nothing screams unnatural like artificially created grass filled with black little beads that get everywhere. Our insistence on creating a playing surface that is unchanged by natural occurrences reflects our desire to control the world around us and deny the randomness that nature presents. This is a common practice of our culture, especially when it comes to planting gardens/shrubbery, as we are actively shaping nature in the ways we want it, rather than allowing its beauty to blossom through its own design.